campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Campaigns Wikia:Edit war/Resolutions/SSMcat
This vote will be for 5 days, from August 10 to August 15, 2006. The vote will be tallied after the end of the day, Tuesday, August 15th. The choices are: *Same-sex marriage pages belong in Category:Civil rights. *Same-sex marriage pages belong in Category:Cultural issues. *They belong in both. *Other ideas are welcome. The debate *Talk:Same-sex marriage *User talk:Lou franklin - blanked by Lou franklin, copy available here. Results *Both - |||||| *Cultural issues - | *Civil rights - | Vote tallied at 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) The same-sex marriage pages will have both Category:Cultural issues and Category:Civil rights. Please feel free to post to the discussion page if you disagree. Debate is welcome, and if compelling arguments are presented such that another vote is warranted, it will be called. See 3RR for more information. Votes *'Both', because I consider it to be both a civil rights issue for people who agree and a cultural issue for those who don't agree. It does harm to no one to add text to a website. Chadlupkes 22:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC) *'Both'. Not only is it a civil rights issue for those who agree and a cultural issue for those who don't agree, it's a cultural issue for those who agree and a civil rights issue for those who disagree. The question is: is this a civil right in this culture? Both. Ferguson 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC) *'Both'. Same-sex marriage advocates seek to turn it into a legal right, therefore it belongs in the Civil rights category. Also, it is evidently a cultural issue. -- Waldsen 23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC) *'Both'. Few would argue that it is not a cultural issue, but those who oppose it claim that it is not a civil rights issue because they believe that it is not/should not be a civil right. Whether it is a civil right or not, the fact that there is a debate as to whether is should be one makes it a civil rights issue, and any attempt to keep it from being categorized as such is a blatant attempt to sweep the issue under the rug. Putting it in the civil rights category does not preclude it from also being categorized as a religious issue or whatever the opposition considers it to be, but it's better for it to be in every category that anyone considers applicable than for it not to be in one to which a large percentage of the arguments (on both sides) are in reference. --whosawhatsis? 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC) *'Cultural issues'. :It's not hard to understand why homosexuals try to link this issue to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s. But it's not hard to understand why that infuriates African-Americans either. Black people in the United States were denied their civil rights for real. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, for example, called the comparison of the civil rights movement to the "gay rights movement" a "disgrace to a black American". He said that "homosexuality is not a civil right. What we have is a bunch of radical homosexuals trying to attach their agenda to the struggles of the 1960s". Jesse Jackson said "gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution." Gene Rivers, a black minister from Boston, has accused homosexuals of "pimping" the civil rights movement. :To try to get this categorized under "civil rights" amounts to propaganda. It is a slap in the face of anyone who has ever really had to fight for their civil rights. :The truth, of course, is that homosexuals have identical civil rights to all other citizens. They even have the identical right to marry. They have the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex, just like all other citizens. Homosexuals are not being taken into slavery or denied their right to vote. There are no civil rights issues here whatsoever. :If I wanted to legalize heroin, would it really make sense to file that under "civil rights"? If I wanted to marry a loaf of bread, would it really be appropriate to call that a civil rights issue? Or is this a lame attempt to bring legitimacy to a radical cause? :We can debate what should or should not be allowed in society, but we cannot debate facts. Civil rights are rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship, especially the freedoms guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments (slavery and due process). That is a fact; it is not debatable. While black people were denied voting rights, for example, homosexual citizens have identical civil rights to every other American. :Having a "vote" cannot change that reality. No matter how many gay people "vote" against it, this is not, nor will it ever be, a civil rights issue. :Lou franklin 05:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) *'Both' All the good arguments have been made already. Jfingers88 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC) *'Civil rights'. In some limited sense, we can say that before there was a 13th Amendment, slaves had no civil right to resist the conditions of slavery. But that amendment didn't just fall from the sky. It was created and ratified because people believed - before it existed - that such a right ought to exist, and they were willing to kill or die to establish it. The right not to be a slave was quite obviously a civil rights issue before it was an accepted civil right. The same is true for the 19th Amendment and the right of women to vote. The collection of civil rights defined by the Constitution at any particular moment puts no constraint on the civil rights issues that can be debated. Any question of whether something should or shouldn't be a civil right is a civil rights issue, and people who refuse to accept an issue as a debatable proposition simply exclude themselves from that debate. Deadplanet 16:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC) ::If we were to redefine the term "civil rights issues" to mean "rights that somebody thinks ought to'' exist'", then ''anything'' becomes a civil rights issue. The legalization of murder would be a civil rights issue. The legalization of rape would be a civil rights issue. The legalization of embezzlement would be a civil rights issue. ::No. Words have meaning. Civil rights are rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I'm sorry but that's what "civil rights" means. And no, it is not debatable. Lou franklin 03:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) :::None of us have the right to dictate to anyone else how they should live, only what the consequences will be if they break laws that were approved during vigorous debate. The entire point of the creation of the United States was to enable debate of important questions. If this is not debatable, then the US experiment has failed. There are countries in the world where homosexuality is subject to the death penalty. And there are countries in the world where same-sex couples have the right to marry. It's a spectrum. Where the United States wants to be on that spectrum is debatable. And both sides are evidently willing to debate it at any time, on any media. So it is debatable. And it's so far been one of the biggest distractions to moving forward on this Wiki. A decision is being made on this page that will be final, and all of us will be expected to abide by it. Chadlupkes 03:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC) ::::2 + 2 = 4. It is not debatable. That actually does not mean that "the US experiment has failed". It just means that 2 + 2 = 4. ::::Obviously "where the United States wants to be on that spectrum is debatable". But what the term "civil rights issue" means is '''not debatable. Lou franklin 05:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) :::I must admit you have a reasonable point Lou. If a issue were defined to be in the category Civil rights when there exists a person or group of people who believe it should be a right, then anything could fall in that category. Although I still believe same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, while child abuse is not (even if there exist people who wish it was a right), I'm going to need to think about the difference. That definition of civil rights issue is too general. -- Waldsen 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC) ::::Homosexual advocates use the term "civil rights" because they are trying to link their cause with Martin Luther King's civil rights campaign. To allow them to categorize this under "civil rights" is to allow this wiki to be used for propaganda purposes. ::::They should try to persuade people to support homosexual "marriage" on the merits of their argument. To allow them to bastardize the language in order to make this seem like Montgomery is inexcusable. Lou franklin 05:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC) ::The "legalization of rape" is actually very similar to the issue of slavery, except for the fact that it was never controversial in the U.S. Prior to the Civil War, there was real disagreement about whether the government should use its coercive power to defend the right of slaveholders to enjoy the use of their "property", or to defend the right of slaves to be autonomous human beings. In this culture, there has been no debate about whether the state should defend the rapist's right of self expression or the victim's right to autonomy. It looks like a non-issue because it's a settled issue. In cultures with extreme male domination, rape is an active civil rights issue. Deadplanet 08:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC) *'Both' - To me, categories are not a reflection of some objective reality but the way people refer to things. If enough people think each category applies (and they clearly do), then it should be in both, along with any other categories that enough people think apply. Munchtipq 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Violations *Lou franklin, 27 August, 2006 **Removed Category:Civil rights on Same-sex marriage pages 08:12-08:14. **Reverted by User:Whosawhatsis, 10:51-10:52 **Removed Category:Civil rights again, 11:35-11:36 **Warning given by User:Chadlupkes at 11:41 **Rolled back by User:Chadlupkes, 11:41-11:43 **Removed Category:Civil rights a third time, 11:50-11:51 **'Blocked' by User:Chadlupkes and User:Waldsen at 11:52 for 3 days. Posted alert on ssm pages about consensus vote.